[Music] When you see a piece of steak on a plate or a big pot of chicken soup, what are your first thoughts? Do you see a healthy nutritious meal, a piece of animal flesh, a comfort food from childhood, or something else? [Music] Thanks for tuning in again to meet the four futures. I'm Matthew Kessler, your guide for this podcast series, where we explore four possible futures for meat and livestock. An efficient meat future. We know people like to eat meat. How can we give them what they want while reducing the impacts that that consumption has on the environment and one way to do that is try to increase efficiency? An alternative meat future. To hear that we could grow meat from cells made me feel like, "Oh my gosh, this is like such an obvious next step for humanity and a real win-win-win when you think about not just reducing environmental impact, but also animals need not suffer anymore for food." A less meat future. We can use food and farming to sequester carbon in soils to create habitats rather than destroying them. My cows are bringing nutrition from part of the landscape that I cannot otherwise make part of my food system. And a no-me plant-based future. We're really thinking about how to make a more sustainable and just food system from the perspective of animal ethics, public health ethics, and environmental ethics. Debating the future meat and livestock is really tricky because our views on meat could be formed by our cultures, our values, and where we live in the world. So what does a good future for meat look like? Well, that's going to mean something different for everyone. In this episode, we head to India and Burkina Faso. They hear two different solutions to meet the surging demand for meat across the global cell. We talk about the ethics of eating animals in the West, where we're often distant and attached from where meat comes from. But first, we go back in time to look at the role that meat is played in our evolutionary diet. Part 1. Meat Matters. Past and present diets. Well, it's indeed often said that meat is the food that made us human, but it's certainly not the only factor. Let's be clear. Friedrich Leroy is a food scientist and technologist, and a professor at Brussels University in Belgium, with an expertise and interest in animal source foods. Meat has indisputably been a centerpiece on our table, dating back to prehistoric times. I think we have to see this as a combined biological and social process that was triggered when our ancestral lines started to deviate from the other apes when we entered the new ecosystem. The ancestors of humans migrated to grasslands and semi-dry woodlands, and added meat and fats to their diet. So there's a dietary shift towards more nutrient dense foods. But at the same time, this new ecosystem also forced us into a new social behavior and a new social system. These hunter-gatherer societies had more social cooperation, which required bigger brains. Because it has to do with understanding the other, it comes with aspects of altruism. So there's a demand for intelligence and bigger brains, and at the same time, we're switching to new diets with higher nutrient density. This is an intertwined process. You need to grow the brain, and you need the building blocks to maintain that growth, which was possible when eating meat. Now, of course, a lion also eats lots of meat and doesn't necessarily increase brain size. The evolutionary trigger there is probably the social aspect. If we talk about the social developments that meat was at the very center of ancestral cosmologists and rituals, and the way people organized society, hunt, and even the eating of meat or the killing of the animal had a very significant place. This is something that is still underneath the surface and plays its role. So meat played an important role in our evolutionary diet. But does that matter? No, it's a great point, of course, and there's no fundamental reason why we should keep with evolutionary foods just for the mere fact that this was the case in the past. However, it seems to be the case that humans are the only species where we assume that we could deviate from our evolutionary diets. Not eating the same diet as our ancestors also applies to the animals that humans have domesticated over the last 10,000 years, like pets, companion animals, and livestock. Humans are pretty adaptable with their diets, and some say that's part of our evolutionary strength. But at the same time, we also know that our bodies are adapted to eating meat. We know that diets are complex. We know that human health is complex, and that matching those two aspects is not something straightforward. Friedrich Willoroi is a strong defender of this evolutionary diet. First starters, meat is packed with nutrition. The problem we often have today is that we tend to think that if we just supplement the couple of missing nutrients, we're matching the nutrients spectrum. It's a bit as if you were eating cornflakes that is fortified with all sorts of vitamins, and that will be your proper meal. A dietary matrix is complex, and the matrix effects are not to be underestimated. Meat is, of course, high in protein, and the protein is extremely bioavailable. If you compare it with cereals, that's a very big difference if you compare it with pulses. The difference is somewhat less, but it's still significant. Meat and other animal products contain all the amino acids, the building blocks of protein that we need. But you can get all these amino acids through a combination of different plants, like beans and grains. Protein deficiencies aren't the usual problem with vegetarian and vegan diets, but getting some of the other nutrients can be pretty tricky. Then you have a range of minerals, iron, where heme iron is, of course, preferentially absorbed compared to ionic forms. Zinc, selenium, there's this spectrum of nutrients there that are easily obtained through meat and are harder to obtain with plant sources. It's not something I'm here advocating for, but it's interesting to see that people can apparently do well on diets that constitute only of meat. It's a very solid source of dietary adequacy. The evaluation you could make here is that you can, in principle, take out meat from the diet, and we know that this is possible because people do that and can remain healthy, but it just complicates things, especially for vulnerable populations. Infants and your children, or even adolescents, young women, pregnant or lactating women, elderly, specifically as well, problems of sarcopenia, those vulnerable populations have higher needs, and those higher needs are not easy to match with plants only. The more you become restrictive, the more you throw out certain food categories, the more difficult it becomes. Clearly meat packs a nutrient punch, but it's been contested for lots of other reasons. Seven environmentalists and ethicists have raised concerns in modern times, but objections to eating meat go back much further in history. For example, people from different regions and ethnicities across India, China, Japan, and Ancient Greece have historically objected to eating meat for reasons related to health and spirituality. Typically, in the past, that was very much connected to religious ideas, ideas of purity, ascetic ideals, where meat was seen as something that is very worldly, very sensual as well. It's a red food, it bleeds. If you are able to avoid eating meat, it means that you're pure enough to be among the spiritual realms. Even the fact that the Garden of Eden diet was basically a plant-based diet. Free to Chlorae focuses on the growth of one particular moment in the Western world that he sees as having a big influence on current debates. He traces back an anti-meat bias to over 100 years ago to organizations that were promoting vegetarianism, especially in the United Kingdom and the United States. In the 19th century, certain religious movements, including the Bible Christians, a bit later the Seven Day Adventists, or Puritan movements that were again very spiritual, they came up with a philosophy that meat should be avoided. They were framing it as a sinful behavior. Now we fast forward to the Progressive Era, which was around 1890 to 1920 in the United States. And during the Progressive Era, being a vegetarian was connected to all sorts of ideas that were seen as world-changing, and very noble ideas we're talking about, anti-slavery, women rights. Friturcleroy points out that it was a fair. specific group that was leading this movement. Progressive urban, very much Anglo-Saxon middle or upper classes and at the same time there was a development also where vegetarianism was connected to the health discourse and that was triggered by people like Sylvester Graham but also Kellogg, John Kellogg. Sylvester Graham, best known today for his invention of Graham crackers, was an American Presbyterian minister who was convinced that humans were physiologically similar to orangutans and should therefore stick to a quote "natural meat-free diet". And John Kellogg, the guy behind Kellogg's cornflakes, was a seven-day Adventist. So he started from the idea that meat is sinful and that it leads to sinful behavior such as sexual activity and masturbation and it had to be avoided and specifically children had to stay away from red meat. But Kellogg was also very much interested in medicine because of that he developed a very influential movement that was putting emphasis on lifestyle, pure vegetarianism and all sorts of other things and both Graham and Kellogg and people from the vegetarian societies started to publish articles in scientific journals or journals that have a scientific appeal and it entered health discourse, became connected to better health in the mind of the upper classes and the progressive upper classes in particular. Friedrich Leroy also points to the field of dietetic studies that looks at how what we eat affects our health. Throughout the 1900s, studies focus more on individual consumption and didn't always separate the social, economic and environmental factors that shape health outcomes. So you have an association there that is created and it is an association that is in my opinion still responsible today for what we consider to be the healthy user bias. The healthy user bias is a problem in health studies that arises when the study is performed on a population that isn't representative of the general public. If you look at upper middle classes that do not eat much meat, they come out as more healthy because they're also, of course, having access to better health care, they smoke less, they drink less and so on and so on. So they're healthy rich people and they tend to eat less meat. So some of the health advantages with plant-forward diets could be a result of vegans and vegetarians making other choices that are better for their health. Studies about diet and diseases are notoriously complex. Researchers are using the best available science and methods to look at associations and control for confounding factors like exercise, smoking, access to health care. Most studies and health organizations conclude that we need to eat less meat than we do today in high meat-consuming countries. Frigicleroy questions and studies that conclude we should eat zero red meat and points to the role of meat in our evolutionary diets. And because of those nutritional studies you get a kind of feedback mechanism that says, "look science is showing here that meat is not good for you," which is a very bizarre thing if you think about the amount of meat that is being eaten by certain populations on Earth, especially Indian ancestral populations. How meat is produced today? The environment we eat it in and how much we eat is very different than the past. For starters, we eat a lot more processed meat, meat that is flavored or preserved with additives. And on the whole, in rich countries of western diets, we do eat a lot more meat today. And most health recommendations, based on the latest science, is to reduce meat consumption. But what is too much? In the United Kingdom, for example, the nutritional recommendations are not to eat more than 70 grams of red or processed meat a day. People were eating over 100 grams 15 years ago, but that has been steadily declining. A really important question here is, if people cut down on how much meat they eat, what are they eating instead? Is it whole foods like beans, peas and lentils? Or is it something else? Frigiala Roy worries about the calls to remove or limit the production and consumption of animal source foods and is afraid that it has become a scapegoat for the more processed foods accompanying western diets. And that's really the elephant in the room. We very clearly see that whenever non-western populations are adopting the western diet, that problem starts to occur. We've seen it, for instance, with Siberian nomads, who are perfectly healthy, and then they start to eat processed noodles and all sorts of other very refined products and they immediately develop the symptoms of the metabolic syndrome. So this is something about the western diet that is intrinsically unhealthy. It's all those very refined products that are high in sugars, combined with refined starches, combined them with oil, often sold thrown in just to enhance the taste and enhance the stability, and that cocktail seems to be something very detrimental. And now you have a situation today where mostly urban middle-lapper classes are looking at meat as something that is toxic and behavior that is either egoistic or harmful for the planet and harmful for the animals. But there's a very huge contrast here between the way that people look at meat in the past, the way that people look at meat. Today, at least some people, because of we're talking about certain western populations, we shouldn't, of course, generalize this to the entire planet. If you go to the global south, you get a very different response. That's Friedrich of the Roy, food scientist and professor at Brussels University in Belgium and a strong advocate for meat and other animal-sourced foods, as good nutritious food for humans, from millions of years ago up until now. Next we'll visit Burkina Faso and see how people eat, farm, and relate to livestock differently. Part 2. Meat as a livelihood and a bank. Meat and livestock take on many different meetings across the world. It's important to people's livelihoods, it's connected with different religious, spiritual, and cultural practices, and it's also a status symbol. When we have a poultry, you are better than someone who has no animals. Vintu Mologo, researcher at Nasi Boni University in Burkina Faso, talks about the cultural status of having animals. The more the animals, the higher the status. When we have a goat, then you improve a little bit. When we have goat and sheep, then we get it like degree. Now when we have poultry, goat, sheep, and cattle, then you get your fish. Which means you are a big guy. Burkina Faso is a country in the center of West Africa with around 20 million people. In Burkina, there are a few types of livestock production, including a more traditional system, which is still after around 2,000 years, widely practiced today. In this traditional system, animals are moving with people across the land. Before colonization, pastoralists used to travel hundreds of kilometers before the country borders of today existed. We have a big area where you can move everywhere, and we call that a no-modition system. Nomadism or pastoralism is still a way of life by tens of millions of people today, mostly across Asia and West Africa. There are also thousands of Sami people hurting reindeer across northern Scandinavia. Nomadism is a system that has almost no inputs, and relies on a landscape-level grazing system where animals follow their food. This traditional system makes up over 95% of livestock production in Burkina Faso. More modern livestock systems that improve animal productivity and efficiency with different feeds, technology, and infrastructure make up only 1% of production. So that's production. How about consumption? In Burkina Faso, people are eating 12 kilograms of meat each year. Compare that with 66 kilograms for person in Sweden, 80 kilograms in the United Kingdom, and 125 kilograms, or 275 pounds, in the United States. Many people in Burkina want to eat more meat, but not all can afford it. So part of your diet depends on your income, but it also matters if you're living in a city or a village. In rural area, people have different view regarding meat and milk. It depends on your country. Some tribes don't eat meat or milk at all because of their traditions, and in many cases in rural areas, it's only eaten on certain occasions. If there is a marie, if they have some
celebration they will slaughter a good sheep or a good cattle, then you can eat milk that day. Having animals in Marquina Faso is a lot like having financial security, like a bank. You know that there's a market for them and that they will sell. People want to keep animals because it's a very secure system in the rural area, even today. You know we also grow cotton. We money they get from cotton they put in the animals. If I invest in animals any time I have money, this is very very very important. I think it's one of the big strategies of fighting against poverty in rural area in West Africa. Vincenzo Milogo sees a big opportunity to develop the livestock sector in Marquina Faso. But there are many challenges. There's climate change, there's competing for land with other industries like mining, and there are some big knowledge gaps that he as a researcher is hoping to fill. So while there is a growing demand for meat, the supply isn't there yet within the country or the region. Vincenzo's vision for the future includes West Africa producing a lot more of its known meat and adopting more modern practices. West Africa already has over 400 million people, and the population is expected to double in the coming decades. And Africa will be 2 billion and a half. We will think if we are not working on the strategy to get more meat. Anyway we need meat is a very big challenge. Fortunately we are we are thinking right now. But I'm really worried. Vincenzo Milogo and Nazi Boni University in Marquina Faso. Where we're heading next, there are also other solutions to meet this rising demand for protein, a solution without more livestock. Part 3. The future of alternative meat in India. I don't think I ever asked you. Do you eat meat? Nicole Rock, senior innovation specialist at the Good Food Institute in India. Nicole Rock talks about the unique set of challenges that the country faces. India overtook China to become the world's most popular nation with 1.5 billion people. And of major concern is the ability of the nation to feed this fast growing population without breaking the planet. By 2050 it's estimated that one out of every six humans on this planet will be living in India, where over 50% of the population relies on agriculture as a source of income. It's a country highly vulnerable to climate change and health challenges have worsened following COVID-19 and inflation. And given the size of this country, it's a complicated picture. When we're talking about feeding India, we're also talking about feeding many different India's. So while on the one hand you are seeing a rapidly growing population with increasing disposable income and upward social mobility that is starting to eat more meat and driving the demand for its production globally. On the other hand, we still have a majority of the population that is not consuming nearly enough protein and performing poorly on a wide range of nutritional indicators. The many India's contain multiple stories. On the one hand, it has the most vegetarian in the world, where 30% of the population doesn't consume meat, but many do eat dairy products like dahi, paneer and ghee. The rest of the Indian population eats some meat, though it's a fraction of what's eaten in Europe and the Americas. While some people are needing meat for religious reasons, the biggest factor that limits meat consumption is people's income, which as we said is expected to rise. In order to halt a climate catastrophe, we need to immediately cut methane emissions, halt depot station, prevent agricultural sprawl and shift consumption towards plant-forward diets. So instead of meeting the existing and growing protein demand with more animal production, the Goodfoot Institute India is building out the ecosystem for alternative proteins to thrive. Asking people to eat chickpeas and not chicken has never really worked. In fact, global meat consumption is predicted to go up. So our theory of change with these alternatives is quite straightforward. It's to give people what they want, but made in a vastly different way that safeguard the planet and public health. They are working with entrepreneurs, investors, and the corporate food sector across the value chain to help develop these products and bring them to markets. India has tremendous crop biodiversity with crops like pulses, millets and hemp, offering huge promise to diversify raw materials for the entire smart protein sector globally. We see huge potential to build a globally competitive manufacturing supply chain for the sector out of India, by which we hope alternative proteins could become widely and cheaply available. That was Nicole Rock of the Goodfoot Institute India, who will hear from again in the upcoming alternative meat episode. So how will this rising demand for meat be met across Africa and Asia as populations grow and incomes rise? How will the cultural significance of livestock be kept? Will alternative protein products play a big or a small role and will more intensified farming systems that the West has modeled take over to meet the demand? Our last stop is in the United Kingdom, where we hear a cautionary tale about the consequences of having a society so removed from animal farming. Part 4. The meat paradox of the Western world, wanting to eat meat, but not wanting to know. As humans we've been consuming animals for at least two million years, and for most of that history it appears that we were much like any other creature we were like a fox or a lion or a bear, we just ate the foods that were available to us and if they were nourishing then they were good. Rock Percival is head of food policy for the Soil Association in the UK and author of the book the Meat Paradox. Today we slaughter over 80 billion land animals for food each year. That includes more than 70 billion chickens, which is followed by pigs, sheep and cows. So while meat has been an important part of our evolutionary diet, our relationship with animal source foods are very different today. Well the last few years I've been deeply embroiled in this polarised meat debate that's sort of spilled across society and I began to be intrigued by the emotional complexity of the debate. That emotional complexity was brought into view in part by a visit to an abattoir where I spent the day closely engaged with the the process of slaughter in a sort of a few intimate moments with the animals as they passed through. And from that point I went to investigate this new and emerging body of psychological science which tells us some really interesting and surprising things about how we relate to animals. In 2011 two psychologists coined the term the meat paradox which explores how we're able to hold two conflicting beliefs at the same time. We care about animals but we often treat farmed animals very badly so there's a gap between our values and our behaviour and in the past decade researchers approved the sort of cognitive and cultural mechanisms, underpinning this divergence and that's been published under the the banner of the meat paradox. What does a gap between our values and behaviour look like in practice? Most people in Britain say that they care about animal welfare but it's intensively farmed poultry and pork which are associated with routine welfare failings which make up the bulk of the meat in our diets. One of them three of us also say that we're eating less meat, we say that we're going veggie or vegan or flexitarian but that reduction isn't reflected in sales or supply data so it seems that we say one thing and do another. It's actually pretty common that we misreport our eating choices when it comes to meat. There's studies across the US, Europe and the UK that suggest eating less meat is aspirational but it's not routinely reflected in people's diets. This might say something about people's strategies to either avoid or disassociate with where meat comes from. But is this meat paradox new? Is it a social invention of modern agriculture or does it have a deeper history.
of agriculture in the past half century as posed novel concerns. But if you look across societies across human history, eating animals is always complicated. It's always ethically complicated. It's only allowed to take place in a sort of ritualized manner. If you look at pre-industrial societies, non-industrial societies, early agricultural societies, for example, the killing of animals had to be conducted by a priest. Temples were also open air butcher shops and the only meat that could be eaten was the sort of byproduct of a sacrifice to the gods. And if you look in various indigenous hunting societies, there's a complex web of rituals and narrative which surround the kill, dictate how the body should be treated, the meat prepared and so on. There's a story that's told about, in many cases, about the rebirth of the animal's soul if that proper ritual procedure is followed. So it's always, always embedded in a ritual context. Remember when Friedrich Leroy was talking about the role of meat in our evolutionary diet? Well, he and Rob Percival are essentially describing the same thing. Hunting and eating meat was a really important social activity, but there was a big variation in how much meat are ancestors eight from most of our diet to a very small portion of it. While Friedrich emphasizes that eating meat is natural to her biology, Rob sees our loss of ritual and relationship with farmed animals as central to issues with meat consumption today. In our society, we're kind of unique in that we've lost some of that. Instead of telling stories that help us make sense of what it means to kill animals, we simply look away, we have hurt our gaze, we find so many ways of distancing ourselves from that disturbing and potentially troubling fact. So Rob is presenting these three facts. One, we more meat now than at any other point in history. Two, that supply relies on an industrial animal production system that is cruel to animals. And three, we deal with this by turning a blind eye. But looking away is only part of the puzzle. There's other factors like how meat is now cheaper and more widely available than at any time in the past. And there's five large meat companies, JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill, Chinese WH group, and BRF that together have an outsized influence on the production, distribution, and marketing of meat across the world. On top of accessibility and affordability, Rob points out that increased meat consumption has a lot to do with entrenched social norms. These mechanisms of detachment and dissociation fuel our consumption in an important way where we feel fairly uninhibited where we're eating meat typically. And this is certainly one of the factors which leads to the dietary patterns that we see in in Western nations today. So at the core of the meat paradox lies the fact that we as consumers are typically quite distant from the production of meat. Often there's a degree of ignorance about the realities of food production and particularly the processing of animal bodies. But what's really interesting is the psychologist is starting to discover that there's a high degree of willful ignorance that sits there as well. Most people when quizzed will explicitly say that they don't want to know about the realities of meat production because they recognize that could make it more emotionally difficult to consume meat. Some research shows that how we see the world is actually shaped by our behavior. So rather than us understanding the world in a certain way and then acting on what we believe they find the opposite can be true. For example for those who eat more meat they actually imagine the animals they eat living in very good conditions and for those who eat less they have a well more realistic view of industrial animal production. Among those of us who say that animal welfare is a high priority a good chunk of us around 50% said that we don't like to think about animal welfare when we're purchasing meat or animal foods in shops and restaurants. So there's a deliberate degree of of detachment there and linked to this is a process of dissociation where we divorce our perception of the meat and our plate from the animal that provided it. So we can easily eat our way through a chicken sandwich, a bacon sandwich or a hamburger without once thinking about the animal whose life provided it. Rob says that there are specific cognitive mechanisms that enable this detachment and that dissociation is shaped by how processed the product is by the language we use to describe it by the context in which it's purchased. It all creates this sort of bubble and within this bubble we divorce our behavior from our values so we continue to identify as as animal lovers as ethical consumers whereas the behavior that we're exhibiting is actually quite divorced from that identity. To be clear Rob Percival is not all or nothing on this issue. I asked Rob to share what he finds to be the most compelling argument to eat meat. There are lots of good reasons to consume animal foods. They need to be balanced against the counter arguments. Some of the most sustainable farming involves animals and those farmers need supporting they need to make a sale that's the world that we're currently living in. And there's a nutritional case for in particular for some population groups if you have young children or if you're an older person there are pretty good reasons to think that eating animal food are going to be beneficial for you. Lots of us especially healthy adults can subsist on a plant-based diet or a diet with little meat. And what's Rob's argument to not eat meat? There's an environmental reason for at least eating much less. In terms of eating no meat I think the the the case is more ethical. For some people it's just more clear to draw a boundary around the whole activity and say there's too much going wrong with animal production at the moment the way that we do it. There's too much harm involved both the animals and the environment and I just want to remove myself from those processes from those systems and one obvious way to do that is to adopt a plant-based diet. Rob is not a stranger to discussing these topics and he hasn't shied away from a gap with people who sit on all sides of this debate. There's a really critical role for instincts and values in shaping the debate. So people's views on these subjects are only partly rational. They're rooted more in perceptions about the way the world works. You know to what degree is behavior change possible or desirable? The policymakers have the will-look capacity to act. Can we trust novel technologies how fast will those technologies scale? How should humans relate to nature? What are the ethical red lines? These are the key questions that come each with a emotional charge attached to them. And they're difficult to grasp in a purely rational context. It's coming down to a more guttural view of how people see the world, their vision of how everything works. And once you understand that people are coming from these very different paradigms, it becomes easier to navigate the debate and find that common ground and be able to talk in a sort of shared language. That's essentially what we're trying to do in this series. To hear people's full views, a mixture of their values and their evidence-based arguments that they're making for each of these four features. So we can develop a shared language and have more constructive conversations. Look forward to hearing the whole thing. Cheers. I find one of the hardest parts of navigating this debate is the very fact that people want to put the spotlight on different parts of it. Some care more about health and nutrition, others about reducing hunger, others greenhouse gas emissions or biodiversity loss. Our starting points for these conversations about meat matters. Just think of how Fritur Kluroy and Belgium and Kohlrock in India think about meat's value and its impacts in completely different ways. The future of food in general and meat in particular is a big topic with profound implications. There's many stakeholders invested in different outcomes and we've got a huge amount of evidence to digest. Next we begin our journey into the four futures. First step, efficient meat 2.0. Number one, consumers in many parts of the world like to eat meat and something they enjoy having under diet. We are part of the problem today. Talking to them about the environmental consequences or even animal welfare consequences doesn't seem to have a big impact. But we can see that with the right steps we can actually be part of the solution also. How are we going to produce enough calories and protein to meet a growing world population? And one way to do that is try to increase efficiency. Thanks to you for listening and please spread the word about us. It really helps if you rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. And we're going to future listening.
in a later episode. Please let us know what you agree and disagree with and why. Record yourself in a quiet room and send it by the end of May 2023 to
[email protected]. And there's more to meet the four features than this podcast. On our website, tabledebates.org/meat, you can subscribe to our newsletter, try out our values-based quiz, and find links to resources mentioned in the episode. This is a Formist Funded Project initiated by the Future Food Platform at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and produced by Table, a collaboration between the University of Oxford, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and Vaxi University in the Netherlands. This episode was edited by me, Matthew Kessler, and Illa Krakow's foreign board. And a big thanks to the Table team for your support. Music by BlueDot Sessions, an epidemic sound. Talk to you next week.
PodcastTranscript AI